4 ms·

That's one of the cruxes of the lawsuit: whether that kind of thing is true, and if it is, whether it constitutes antitrust to take advantage of it. If search e

That's one of the cruxes of the lawsuit: whether that kind of thing is true, and if it is, whether it constitutes antitrust to take advantage of it. If search engines overlap 99.9% in quality, default might win purely because users are lazy and uninterested in understanding the application domain. Personal opinion: it sticks in my craw a little if it turns out you can be a monopolist by just working to be the default search engine because users are too lazy to try switching. That's a weird way to interpret the "consumer harm" cornerstone of American antitrust.

elicash 3y ago
> If search engines overlap 99.9% in quality, default might win purely because users are lazy and uninterested in understanding the application domain. What Microsoft is saying in this case is that their search engine sucks by comparison to google and lacks quality because they don't have the same number of queries since they aren't the default. That whoever has the most queries will automatically be the highest quality and win across all platforms, not just Apple where it's the default. Your argument is very different! You're essentially arguing that Microsoft is wrong about not being nearly as good as Google. See https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23900233/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-us-google-antitrust-trial-testimony https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23900233/microsoft-ceo-sa...
- shadowgovt 3y ago
  Ah, okay! That is actually very clever and I tip my hat to their lawyers for coming up with that approach. Granted, one could I suppose have some concerns with an argument that says " We can't be as good because we don't have the ability to harvest nearly as much private data that users don't just hand you unless you intermediate yourself in their lives..." ... But there's meat on the bones of that being a roundabout way to argue consumer harm.

elicash 3y ago

> If search engines overlap 99.9% in quality, default might win purely because users are lazy and uninterested in understanding the application domain. What Microsoft is saying in this case is that their search engine sucks by comparison to google and lacks quality because they don't have the same number of queries since they aren't the default. That whoever has the most queries will automatically be the highest quality and win across all platforms, not just Apple where it's the default. Your argument is very different! You're essentially arguing that Microsoft is wrong about not being nearly as good as Google. See https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23900233/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-us-google-antitrust-trial-testimony https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/2/23900233/microsoft-ceo-sa...

shadowgovt 3y ago
Ah, okay! That is actually very clever and I tip my hat to their lawyers for coming up with that approach. Granted, one could I suppose have some concerns with an argument that says " We can't be as good because we don't have the ability to harvest nearly as much private data that users don't just hand you unless you intermediate yourself in their lives..." ... But there's meat on the bones of that being a roundabout way to argue consumer harm.